July 8, 2015

Something I said, after Meade said something, as we watched highlights from that Hillary interview that was on CNN last night. We watched the whole thing last night, and I'm sorry I didn't live blog it and produce truly fresh observations. If I remember correctly, my exclamations last night included: "Wow, she's terrible," "This is with her hand-picked interviewer!," "This is a softball interview and she's coming across as so withholding," "That constant head-bobbing with that smile — it's like her people worked with her about looking like she's tolerating hearing questions and that's the best they could get her to do."

I did make some notes...

That's not an 11 after "I can only tell you." That's my count of how many times she used that phrase: twice. It was twice within a short space of time. I was motivated to start making notes because: What a horrible go-to filler phrase! She's coming across as guarded and withholding, so she shouldn't be saying something that expresses the idea that there's more but she's not going to reveal it. I know she thinks she's saying: This is actually the whole story. But we suspect her of holding back, so it seems as though she's honest enough that she inadvertently let the truth slip out in that phrase. She knows she's not supposed to tell the whole truth, and it feels as though she's operating under instruction from her lawyers: For each possible controversy: Only tell X.

(I want to coin the word "onlytell" — in the style of gainsay. Did you hear what Hillary onlytold in that interview?)

Hillary was prodded about the email, and she burst into what felt like a well workshopped 2-part response. Part 1 was for you legalistic sticklers:

"Now, I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system."

Part 2 was for the good people, the likeable people, the ooh-I-hate-lawyers-shut-up-lawyers people:

"Now I think it's kind of fun. People get to see a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about."

Fun! She thinks it's kind of fun! I mean, obviously, she wants you to move into the "fun" mentality. Isn't this a treat, peeking behind the scenes at Hillary and Huma chatting about that darned fax machine? At the very end of the interview, she once again displays this sense of "fun" that you'll probably scoff at because you're such a jerk:

So I'm just going to be my own little self and kind of keep going along and saying what I believe in and putting forth changes that I think would be good for the country....

Be my own little self... Is that something her people say behind the scenes, something like "Let Nixon be Nixon"? But Nixon never said: "I'm just going to let Nixon be Nixon."

Ah, here's the whole transcript. I can show you how "I can only tell you" came up twice within a very short sequence. This happened near the beginning of the interview, after the first couple questions, which were about whether Hillary would, like Bernie Sanders, raise taxes. Hillary had deflected that inquiry with a statement that she "will be laying out" her policies and is "going to be telling" us what they are, and as to whether raising taxes is even "on the table," she's going to be "making a speech about my economic proposals on Monday." That's when I started exclaiming "She's so withholding!"

BRIANNA KEILAR: I'm wondering if you can address a vulnerability that we've seen you dealing with recently. We see in our recent poll that nearly six in 10 Americans say they don't believe that you're honest and trustworthy. Do you understand why they feel that way?

CLINTON: Well, I think when you are subjected to the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the Right and...

That got 2 reactions here at Meadhouse: 1. She's doing "vast right-wing conspiracy" again!, and 2. "Fomented"! What do "everyday people" think of a somebody who says "fomented"? What do they think "fomented" means... something about foam?

KEILAR: But do you bear any responsibility for that?

CLINTON: - well, I - you know, I can only tell you that I was elected twice in New York against the same kind of onslaught.

She's choosing to answer a question that the question reminds her of. The question asked is: Why do people feel you're dishonest and untrustworthy? The question she's answering is: Can you get elected even though people think you're dishonest and untrustworthy?

I was confirmed and served as secretary of state and I think it's understandable that when questions are raised people maybe are thinking about them and wondering about them.

That acknowledges that people have feelings, not why they have them.

But I have every confidence that during the course of this campaign people are going to know who will fight for them...

Again, she deflects us to the future. She'll be telling us things later.

... who will be there when they need them and that's the kind of person I am. And that's what I will do, not only in a campaign but as president.

She comes in for a landing with the most generic material possible. Keiler tries again (to seem like a tough journalist and not the chosen softballer?)):

KEILAR: Trusting someone to fight for them and trusting someone, these are two different things. Do you see any role that you've had in the sentiment that we've seen, where people are questioning whether you're trustworthy?

CLINTON: I can only tell you, Brianna, that this has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years...

She already onlytold Brianna what she told Brianna she could onlytell.

Geez--with months to prepare, this is how she does? Who the hell is advising her, anyway? I can think of several plausible, workable answers to those questions--take some blame for why you're not coming across as trustworthy! Admit that you made some mistakes in the attempt to have greater personal control of information, and you learned from this! How hard is that???

But I suppose in an echo chamber of sycophants where your idea of a third party opinion is David Brock, you will develop an entitled mentality and stick to tired, old arguments like "this is the right wing again!" (even though MSM sources and left leaning journalists are coming at her for these issues) and "I obeyed the law!" (even though this is about her honesty, not a legal trial).

Please, Democrats--try and save face! Bernie Sanders represents the true heart of your party, and he wouldn't be carrying the stench of Clintonism with him.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... if she wins California and Florida (in the general election) she wins ... right?"

Well, she will win California, and it's hard to see how she wins Florida but somehow loses the key Mountain West states, Virginia and Ohio at the same time. The GOP has an electoral disadvantage because of that.

But Hillary just seems an exceptionally bad politician. She may yet find a way to fritter away her built-in advantages in this race.

"She's still going to get 40% of the vote. There is not a damn thing she can do or say to change that, or a damn thing the Republicans could do or say to change that.

At this point, the only one who could is Sanders, and the Democrats have moved so far Left, he might."

Yeah, about 40% on each side (and maybe more) is already baked in. It's possible for the GOP to beat her if they pick a good politician who can hold together the right as well as win over a good chunk of the middle. She might be a worse politician than Kerry or Gore, who were both spectacularly poor.

Well if she were a Republican, she would be, and ineligible for the presidency for life to boot.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

"Now, I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system."

What?WHAT?This is a flat out lie.

She was running her own mail server. The only thing the State Department could possibly have is emails sent to and from her mail server and email addresses within the State Department mail domain. All other emails, to other countries' officials, to people outside the State Department, to personal and private email addresses would NOT be in the State Department's system. You can argue that the bulk of her communication was to State Department mailboxes, but certainly not all.

Is it possible to combine Trump and Sanders? If it is, that is the kind of irreverence to either establishment we want to see, right? No, you won't get that from Hillary, (just as you won't get that from Jeb or any of the 20 others on the GoP side). I am afraid, you won't even get the Hillary we saw in 2008.

Jake Tapper had a big twitter row over diversity on CNN's Sunday show. He made a point to mention Hillary. He wanted more female presidential candidates but Clinton isn't playing ball. It was amusing that right after that fight it was announced she'd sit down with an obscure CNN reporter rather than their Sunday anchor.

What she can't onlytell you at this point is the tricks up her sleeve. For example, Bernie is not a registered Democrat so she isn't really sweating him winning the nomination at the DNC. Hilary! knows what the D stands for. And if she's polling badly against the eventual R nominee she can always have the Clinton Crime Fund create a super-pack to help The Donald mount a 3rd party run and drain away any hope of a GOP win.

Likeable enough? Depends on the meaning of "enough," I guess. Honest enough? Only if you have a very low threshold for "enough."

But uncommonly stupid with respect to modern technology if she thought putting her official Emails on a poorly secured server was a good idea! Is there anyone on this thread who thinks the Russians and Chinese and lots of other people were not reading her Emails before she was? There is no room in the 21st century for a president who is that technologically inept.

If you are wondering why Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is losing ground to admitted “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, perhaps a look at her appearance in Provincetown last week might be instructive.

Clinton, making her first-ever trip to the tip of Cape Cod, was the guest of honor at a private $1,000- and $2,700-a-head fundraiser at the swish waterfront home of Boston real estate tycoon Daniel Mullin. It was the talk of the town, which, according to a 2012 study, is the most Democratic burg in the state at 73 percent, ahead of even the People’s Republic of Cambridge (71 percent).

“This is like major buzz in town,” Alix Ritchie, an organizer of the event told us last week. “Everybody is just elated that she’s coming.”

Hillary’s visit came at an opportune time, too — the week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right. P’town is also the gayest city in the country, according to census figures.

So as you might imagine, everyone wanted to sneak a peek at or grab a pic with the former first lady. But alas, it was not to be ...

We’re told that Hillary fans began staking out their spots along Commercial Street — the town’s main drag — in the morning, in order to wave at Hillary and her motorcade as it made its way from the airport to the town’s West End for her scheduled 3 p.m. arrival.

“I went to the post office at about 8 o’clock and there were already people setting up their chairs,” said one townie.

When Hill boarded her plane to P’town in Hyannis, well-wishers had gathered to try and snap pics with their cellphone cameras. But Clinton’s Secret Service detail ordered them all to back off. No pictures allowed.

And once she arrived in P’town, instead of taking Commercial Street — which is one way in the direction she was going — Clinton’s motorcade followed Route 6 to the West End of town, then went up Commercial Street (which had been closed to traffic) the wrong way, bypassing all the sign-waving well-wishers!

Although the supporters who ponied up to get up close and personal with Hill reported that she was warm and receptive, even P’town’s Democratic state rep criticized Clinton for not at least shaking a few hands.

State Rep. Sarah Peake told the Cape Cod Times she wished Hill had taken 20 minutes to press the flesh on Commercial Street.

“In my experience, when people have a chance to meet the person that they’re voting for, that’s very important,” she told the paper. “The way she’s portrayed in the media and in the public eye in general ... the Hillary Clinton I saw today at the end of Commercial Street is not the Hillary Clinton that I read about even in The New York Times. There is a warmth and a personality and gravitas there that you don’t just pick up on.”

Hillary’s aversion to getting up close and personal with the people she wants to vote for her — she’s been knocked for similar avoidance tactics in New Hampshire — is in sharp contrast to her husband’s M.O. Throughout his political career, Bill Clinton liked nothing better than wading into a crowd of well-wishers for some good old-fashioned retail politics.

Of course, Hillary’s need to ditch the hoi polloi also extends to the media. Who can forget the sight of the rope line her campaign devised to corral reporters who might get close enough to shout a question at the former secretary of state during a July 4 parade in New Hampshire last weekend?

Hillary’s peeps are worried that Sanders could overtake her in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus. And he’s virtually tied with her in New Hampshire. Perhaps it’s time for Hillary to ditch the tiny closed-door meetings with supporters and get out with the real people. After all, they’re the ones who vote ...

Just a regular lady. A champion of women's freedom. A competent, principled pantsuit when the going gets rough. Does she even want to be President? She's my gal, that's for sure. Ha-Ha. What hasn't she done? Loves healthcare, education, unions, women's rights, global health, policy discussions, minorities, the People.

I'm using "onlytell" as a verb. If you want to make it a noun, based on my verb, an "onlytell" (n.) would be a limited statement. A "tell" is a gesture that reveals something a person intends to keep hidden. So I wouldn't equate them. An "onlytell" would be just the boring thing one chose to tell. That's why it's best as a verb.

The fact that she's not honest enough is indisputable, but I'm wondering whether she is, in fact, likeable enough. Even people wanting lots of free stuff will have a hard time seeing her on TV for four years.

What do "everyday people" think of a somebody who says "fomented"? What do they think "fomented" means... something about foam?

Everyday people have likely heard the term in reference to 'fomenting rebellion', so they likely translate her usage into "opposing me politically is as illegitimate as rebellion". Which seems amazingly consistent with Hillary's meaning.

I can only tell you that I was elected twice in New York against the same kind of onslaught.

Look, there it is again: opposition to me isn't a political contest, it's a militaristic attack.

She's really a horrible politician. First because she actually believes this nonsense, and second because she thinks most Americans believe it also.

Because of that conspiracy we learned definitively the true conspiracy was the Clinton's masquerading as a monogamous family unit. Does she nor remember this or is she just hoping everyone else has forgotten?

"who will be there when they need them and that's the kind of person I am."

The amazing thing is, I believe she really believes that.---Did she complete that Bill-ism with a biting of the lip?Whenever she gets into an awkward interview moment, she just needs to point to her crotch and say "But..vagina"Then they can segue into discussing those 5 smells.

She's campaigning heavily on her status as a Vagino-American. That's probably her strongest suit. Her actual record at every point of her life is dismal. She does have a willing press on her side that seems not to mind being treated like the sheep they are. That's a big plus for her.

2. I can't understand how anyone can take Hillary Clinton seriously, except insofar as she may be our next president. She's obviously deceptive and concealing, she's a rabid war-hawk, and her attempts at populism are transparent pandering, and unconvincing, at that. She's terrible. (But then, so have been our last several presidents, going back decades.) In short, one cannot expect to learn anything useful--or promising--about her from any public statements she will make.

There are no viable candidates for either major party who can even be hoped to be a "good" president, (if, by that, we mean a competent president who will serve the people's interest).

During the exchange about the Emails I felt like the Queen was lecturing to the plebes. I've given you more than enough! Be grateful for what I have given you!

And the interviewer was terrible. She had X number of questions she wanted to ask, rather than good follow up on questions we want answered. So many questions about the Emails, but, let's just let Hillary say what she wants about them with no follow up.

The reason her answers are the same in some respects as they were 20 years ago and more is that she was covering up and lying then, and she's covering up and lying now, and this is the formula she has for doing that.

So, of course, there is a variant of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the notion these charges are old and were made by people who would be political enemies anyway, who maybe try to come to come up with all kinds of thinbgs to say about her, and, and the "testimonials" from other people.

(the pointing to the New York elections, where, by the way, by and large, such charges were not made, is NOT saying that you can get elected anyway, bit rather, that voters in New York didn't believe them, or didn't believe whatever was true amouned to much.)

She never attacks any of the charges really head on. It's all reasoning ABOUT reasoning, and her target audience is people who are unfamiliar with the details.

She had to be really worried about Bernie Sanders' campaign to do this interview.

A "tell" is a gesture that reveals something a person intends to keep hidden. So I wouldn't equate them.

It kinda fits though, doesn't it? If Hillary! simply told us, without preamble, the only stuff she can tell us, we might not suspect the existence of the other stuff, the stuff her lawyers are telling her not to tell us. It's only when she starts with "I can only tell you" that we sense the absence of the other stuff; "I can only tell you" is the onlytell which leads us to suspect that there's more to tell.

That she released, or wants to release, more than she has to, and that these e-mails might be of interest to the public (subtext: not for evidence or wrongdoing or incompetence but) just to see how a Secretary of State operates, or how she operates, is not new, but something she's been saying since March.

"But uncommonly stupid with respect to modern technology if she thought putting her official Emails on a poorly secured server was a good idea! Is there anyone on this thread who thinks the Russians and Chinese and lots of other people were not reading her Emails before she was? There is no room in the 21st century for a president who is that technologically inept."

You know, I can give a candidate a pass for being technologically inept--a president will of course have advisors and staff who should know that stuff cold. The problem indicated here isn't that Hillary's too out of touch to understand technology--many older voters can probably sympathize--the problem is that despite being head of a cabinet department, who should have skilled IT staff to call on for advice, she still wound up with NO IDEA how e-mail servers worked. So she is either flat out lying by pretending she didn't know this server was a way to hide her official e-mails (which are public property, not hers) or she is far too dense or proud to listen to the advisors she should have had, which also makes her a dangerous person to have in charge.

-- There is no reason to believe that. OPM was breached, and they actually HAD security. Clinton may SAY there were no breaches, but OPM and the Obama White House told us the same thing, as well as lying about the severity of the breaches. Only, this time, there's no one to hold her accountable.

Everything on that server is most likely compromised, and if it isn't, we still have to act as though it is. Not only that: IT WAS ILLEGAL. She ALTERED emails she provided to Congress to hide information. It doesn't matter WHY. She CHANGED and WITHHELD legally requested documents. Try doing that to any government agency. Try telling a judge: "Well, this is the information you wanted, but I changed it a bit, just because."

Eric: Part of that comes to holding the levers of power. As long as Eric Holder, or someone with his morals and loyalties, is in his position, people like Lerner and Clinton will be free to do as they see fit.

"This had Bill Clinton level security, and that's very good. Much better than anything else"

Matthew Sablan said ...7/8/15, 10:55 AM

-- There is no reason to believe that.

Then what about the Waco fire, and the truth about the Vincent Foster case? How come we don't know any Clinton secrets from the inside, but only from clues??

I could cite other things, too. Like the key to a safety deposit box in a bank in Hot Springs Arkansas that Oklahoma bomber Terry Nichols had. (supposedly stolen during a robbery that neither he nor Timothy McVeigh could have committed)

OPM was breached, and they actually HAD security. Clinton may SAY there were no breaches,

Indeed she said her server was more secure than that of the White House, and this is actually true, I think.

but OPM and the Obama White House told us the same thing, as well as lying about the severity of the breaches. Only, this time, there's no one to hold her accountable.

If her server had been breached, we would know stuff, wouldn't we? Or do you think they paid off the hackers? Or the only people capable of doing that are friendly to. or afraid of, the Clintons?

It is, or was, probably theoretically impossible to hack into.

She ALTERED emails she provided to Congress to hide information. It doesn't matter WHY. She CHANGED and WITHHELD legally requested documents.

I am not sure what you are referring to. She did withhold documents, (by arranging to supply to the State Department only what turned up in searches, which were probably reverse engineered.) She may also have secrtet;y deleted some e-mails.

But what did alter? The State Department redacted some documents.

She broke the law; she does not deserve the people's trust.

I'm sure she broke the law, many times, although she has bever been indicted, and of course she shoulds not be trusted by anybody.

If I were on the Left, I wouldn't either. The Clintons have sold out the Left repeatedly, and Leftists have long been torn (criticize the Clintons and empower the Right? Or take their sellouts and hope for scraps?) over how to deal with it. Bush Jr., by contrast, gave them someone to unite against and define themselves by.

The Clintons though have been about crony capitalism, warmongering, erosion of civil liberties (which many liberals, to their credit, still care about) and selling out gays, blacks and women whenever convenient. Again, why should the Left feel they owe these people? Plus, partisanship aside--they are slimy, lying crooks and the country is ill served by them.

At least with Sanders there's an honest leftist. And if he got the Dem nomination, he'd probably do at least as well as Hillary in the general election.

@Sammy, regarding "Bill Clinton level security," b*llsh*t. Make that bull f**king sh*t. No one who works in InfoSec (as I do) thinks the server was well-secured. The certificates weren't even up to date!

The House Select Committee on Benghazi released Wednesday the March 4 subpoena for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, refuting her claim in a national TV interview that she was never subpoenaed. (Washington Times)

"Was referring to Hil. Hadn't heard about Stein...doesn't sound like much of a threat."

It was Stein I was talking about, in reference to asking another commenter if he was implying "she" (Stein) was a lesbian, not Hillary, whom I would never vote for.

Stein isn't a threat...the one party has the election sewed up...whether it's the Republican wing or the Democratic wing, one of their cookie-cutter aspirants to be the next corporate vassal in the White House will win. (The American people will, again, lose.)

Redacting documents released publicly is one thing. She removed information she provided to the Department of State, which were only noticed when compared with Blumenthal's submissions.

I don't think that's correct. What she didn't do, is send all e-mails involving foreign policy to the State Department. But, she never actually really claimed to have done that. (her lawyers labeled everything not sent "private" but hat was a transparent misrepresentation)

She supplied e-mails that fit within certain search criteria that she and her lawyers negotiated with the State Department. All this was done before the committee was even notified about her having retained the only sender's copies of e-mails, so of course they never were subpoenaed before anythinbg she didn't supply was deleted.

The e-mails she printed out paper copies of were mostly emails that had been sent to State Department e-mail addresses (and which she could not know the State Department did NOT have, although many may have been deleted by the recipient) plus those that came up when certain search terms were used (which were probably reverse-engineered to avoid having certain e-mails come up)

But there's still some stuff, damaging in various ways, in there - that's why Hillary is encouraging people to study them for its human interest value

The only reason any Sidney Blumenthal e-mails at all were supplied to the State Department (and later to the House committee) was that Hillary Clinton forwarded most of them to Jake Sullivan, who had a state.gov e-mail address, with the request that he further forward them all over, keeping Blumenthal's name out of it. Some she was almost embarassed to send him, but it was probably part of her or Bill Clinton's arrangeent that this disionformation be sent to the U.S. government where (Putin?) could see if it flies.

The reason we have other e-mails is that Sidney Blumenthal, on advice of his lawyers, supplied them to Congress. This advice was probably affected by knowledge that his e-mail had been hacked, and that meant e-mails could show up later

It is not to me clear if any or all of the "Guccifer" e-mail messages, leaked (in all probability) by the Russian government were genuine Sidney Blumenthal e-mails or foregeries or altered by Putin's intelligence agency.

Sidney Blumenthal testified that he didn't write any of these "intelligence" e-mails he sent to Hillary's server, but they were written by Tyler Drumheller.

And just who is Tyler Drumheller?

He's an ex-CIA official who retired in 2005 who was one of those claiming that George W. Bush (and not the CIA) lied about Iraq!

He was the division chief for the Directorate of Operations (DO) - for clandestine operations in Europe from 2001 to 2005 - in other words the guy who found the farged documents in Italy which Vice President Cheney questioned which said that Iraq had a contract to buy iranium from Niger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Drumheller

According to Drumheller the Bush administration ignored CIA advice and used whatever information it could find to justify an invasion of Iraq....

... On September 6, 2007, Sidney Blumenthal, reporting at Salon.com, supported Drumheller's account: "Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it."

I think maybe Tyler Drumheller or his friends could also have been the person reponsible for sending Joe Wilson to Niger - because this way the CIA avoided debunking that claim.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi released Wednesday the March 4 subpoena for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, refuting her claim in a national TV interview that she was never subpoenaed. (Washington Times)

Hillary misspoke, mangling her lines, although she caught herself and started over.

She meant to say that they were not subpoenaed before they were deleted. The reason they were not subpeonaed, of course, was that the fact that she retained the only sender's copies of her e-mails (or e-mail from places outside the State Department or the government, which she never sent) was kept hideen from the Bengazi committee until after she had supplied what the State Department requested and deleted the rest. Her negotiations with the State Department lasted a few months.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi released Wednesday the March 4 subpoena for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, refuting her claim in a national TV interview that she was never subpoenaed. (Washington Times)

Hillary misspoke, mangling her lines, although she caught herself and started over.

She meant to say that they were not subpoenaed before they were deleted. The reason they were not subpeonaed, of course, was that the fact that she retained the only sender's copies of her e-mails (or e-mail from places outside the State Department or the government, which she never sent) was kept hideen from the Bengazi committee until after she had supplied what the State Department requested and deleted the rest. Her negotiations with the State Department lasted a few months.

@Sammy, regarding "Bill Clinton level security," b*llsh*t. Make that bull f**king sh*t. No one who works in InfoSec (as I do) thinks the server was well-secured. The certificates weren't even up to date!

That doesn't matter. This may actually have been delibetrately avoided because they weren't following protocol and didn't want to gove away their secrets.

Bill Clinton had excellent lawyers, who had very good reasons for maintaininbg information security, including the fact that they were probably breaking the law somewhere themselves.

It's pretty easy, I think. to add security in a way that would not be practical for a larger system.

For instance, it might be made possible to log on remotely only from certain devices. Some banks (like Chase) do this but they gove people a way out by allowing people to ansewr security questions. Well, you don't have to allow the security question loophole.

Or, like Google, you might determine from what location or ISP somethinbg was coming in from, and not allow any others.

Or, you might on occasion, use distance, which can't be faked, as data cannot travel faster than the speed of light, as one criteria of authentication.

Just FWIW, how do you know Bill Clinton's server hasn't been hacked?

Do you, or anyone else, know the named of any Bill Clinton's girlfriends after Monica Lewinsky?

For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.